In the case of Ball and Socket Fastener Company v. Kraetzer in 1893, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a patent dispute. The plaintiff, Ball and Socket Fastener Company, claimed that Kraetzer had infringed upon their patented design for a fastening device used in clothing manufacturing. However, the defendant argued that he was using an older method not covered by the plaintiff's patent rights. The court sided with Kraetzer after examining both methods closely and determining they were indeed different processes - one involving crimping metal into shape (the old method), while the other involved casting it (the new patented process). Therefore, no infringement had occurred as per Justice Brewer’s decision.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of Ball and Socket Fastener Company v. Kraetzer, it was argued that there had been a misinterpretation of patent law. The majority held that Kraetzer's invention did not infringe upon any existing patents because it was an improvement on previous designs, but the dissent disagreed with this interpretation. They believed that even though Kraetzer's design may have improved upon prior inventions, if he used elements from those earlier patented designs without permission or licensing agreements then his actions constituted infringement under patent law. Furthermore, they contended that improvements should not automatically be considered non-infringing as this could potentially undermine incentives for original innovation by allowing others to simply make minor changes to existing patents and claim them as their own unique creations.